On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 8:51 PM, L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote: > > > John McKown wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 4:48 PM, L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org <mailto: >> b...@tlinx.org>> wrote: >> <snip> >> >
> OK, I did a port of BASH to an IBM "mainframe" system (IBM z) which uses >> EBCDIC as it's character set, rather than ASCII or UNICODE. Granted, this >> system is a very minor player to most people. OTOH, most "Fortune 500" >> companies will have one or more "hidden away" doing some "legacy" work and, >> now, perhaps even some mobile (smartphone, tablet) back end work. There is >> another mid-range IBM system which also uses EBCDIC, but I don't know if it >> has a BASH port or not. >> > I know that perl which supports an ebcdic flavored machines, has full > UTF-8 support now -- they were one of the first -- about 10 years ago, > but no one uses ebcdic outside of ibm machines -- and those are not > consumer or home level machines. > > I'm surprised you got bash ported to work with that charset though, > and certainly I can't imagine you using an ebcdic machine as a home > machine....are you? > No. I did this for work. I actually use BASH at work on an IBM z/OS system. Bugs my boss a little, but he allows it. I only "jumped in" when it seemed that the OP wanted to know if _anybody at all_ could not use UTF-8. I can use UTF-8 on the system, but it is difficult to interface between EBCDIC (which is the majority of the data) and UTF-8 in a really easy way and "transparent" way. It can be done, but it causes me nausea. I know of three people who have resurrected some old IBM z hardware at home. But they are running Linux with ASCII. The IBM z is not exactly "married" to EBCDIC. But a few of the "zoned" decimal instructions are EBCDIC oriented. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45X4VP8CGtk -- Windows. A funny name for a operating system that doesn't let you see anything. Maranatha! <>< John McKown